[clue-talk] Wow, Card's a little political...

[Angelo Bertolli]

Thanks Nate for making so many responses... I don't think we think all 
that differently.

Nate Duehr wrote:
> What Obama's been doing for decades is promising that he'll help poor 
> people out of their predicament, and delivering things like bad loans 
> to them, prolonging the problem.  That's not a very good track 
> record.   He put the nails in the coffin by spending $4 million on his 
> "I love me, don't you?" informercial the other night.  With his poll 
> numbers, he's likely to win... why do a 1/2 hour TV show?  Send that 
> $4 million back to his "neighborhood", perhaps?  Not a chance.  He's 
> just as much of a party shill as McCain is right now... he has to be.  
> They both do.

Ok then we can agree this is a vote for party rather than the man.  
Although I get the impression you're hoping McCain is just playing the 
Republicans for now.  But either way, McCain can't have his cake and eat 
it too.  He won't be able to convince people that he doesn't tow the 
party line ("if you wanted to run against Bush...") while at the same 
time bending over for them.

Personally I would have been a lot more on your page if he hadn't picked 
Palin.  Picking Palin sort of indicated to me that he was willing to go 
"too far" and that the rather than playing nice to the Republican 
party,  he was now their puppet.  I seriously might be voting for McCain 
if he had picked someone who seemed like they at least knew how to play 
the game.  Disparaging remarks about the office of VP aside, the 
President needs as many good people around him as possible.  It's a 
possible indicator of how he chooses his cabinet.

Oh how much better off we would have been if McCain had gotten what he 
deserved and won in 2000...


>> At least it seemed that way, with that fake smile and "my friends" 
>> every other second.  But I still wasn't sure he wasn't just doing 
>> this to get elected by a party that now needs the crazy vote.  (I 
>> really hope the Republicans can split or reform themselves.)  Then 
>> when he made an important decision like choosing a VP, I knew he had 
>> joined the dark side.  I just plain don't trust him to make his own 
>> decisions like he used to.
>
> And the fake smile on the Obama infomercial while he "makes love to 
> the camera" to garner your vote isn't just as sickening?  Standing on 
> a stage in front of a TV camera, everyone has a fake smile.  The ones 
> who can make it LOOK like it's not fake, usually win nowadays.
>
> Let's face it, to be running for the office they're running for in the 
> modern world, they're both enormous sell-outs in so many ways, it's 
> amazing.  I'll vote for the guy who when faced with a decision of 
> principle, chose to let someone torture him so his country wouldn't be 
> smeared in the press.  Not the guy who truly believes his messiah 
> image.  That screams "bat-shit crazy" to me. 

Well maybe I give the same benefit of the doubt to Obama that you give 
McCain.  But I really don't like the way Obama is glorified either,  and 
I don't prefer him because of the things he's said.  I'm just freaking 
scared of the Republicans at this point based on what I've watched from 
their rallies.  Maybe that's because I've watched more Republican 
rallies, and I really would just hate everyone equally.  My friend, on 
the other hand, says he just doesn't trust Obama... so it all comes down 
to trust, I guess.


Nate Duehr wrote:
>
> On Oct 31, 2008, at 10:25 PM, Angelo Bertolli wrote:
>
>> So yeah, I'm being kind of mean, but if you think you really do have 
>> something that you feel makes her overly qualified, please mention 
>> it.  At least then I'd know a little bit more about the people who 
>> like her.  (Right now I only have one friend who likes her and it's 
>> for her stance on abortion, but I'm guessing that's not your reason.)
>
> How about this one:  She did what her constituents wanted in Alaska.
>
> Is there any better measure of a politician?

I'm not sure:  are politicians supposed to just do what all the 
constituents want, or are they supposed to do what the people who voted 
for them want?  I really think that the Alaskans are quite different in 
terms of what they want than the rest of the country.  If you've ever 
been to Alaska, you know what I mean... it's kind of a self-selected 
population.  Which is why it would be better if the state governments  
were built up in lieu of the federal government a little bit.  To each 
his own, right?

>> By the way, the Democrats aren't socialist.  Neither am I, but this 
>> list has a lot of right wing campers so I know the things I pick to 
>> say make me sound differently.  We're all capitalists in this 
>> country, but some of us think that a different mix and balance of 
>> social programs are necessary for a good society.  (Well except for 
>> maybe you and Jed, who as far as I can tell don't think we should 
>> have any social programs or taxes.)  But at least admit that it's not 
>> as black and white as "the Republicans are Capitalists" and "the 
>> Democrats are Communists."  It's just not true.
>
> Fair comment.  I like it.  I wholeheartedly agree.  (You probably 
> think I'm a right wing camper.  But I do want government for many 
> things.  Not healthcare, and not forced housing loans.)

No,  I don't.  I think you and I are probably closer in opinion than it 
sounds in these discussions.  You seem to be more Republican leaning, 
and I have become a little more Democrat leaning.  I do nit-pick the 
right more:  having always voted Republican in the past feel sort of 
obligated to say why I'm having a philosophical fall-out with them.  The 
Republicans just aren't the same party they used to be.

>> Well I"m not so sure that greed, fraud, and deception are incongruent 
>> with capitalism ;)  That's kind of the point.  How do you get around 
>> that without regulation?  Someone tells you to spread your money as 
>> thinly as possible and buy 20 houses so that you can make the most 
>> profit.  They get their money,  while you've helped them to create a 
>> housing bubble where the supply is too high and the values are 
>> therefore not at the correct point.  People and banks think they have 
>> more value than they actually do,  and then suddenly it starts to 
>> fall.  But it doesn't just punish the people who screwed up.  
>> Everyone falls together.  We're all interconnected.  What you do 
>> affects me, and what I do affects you.  Thats' the whole point.
>
> The part you're missing there is that the guy spreading the money 
> around to the 20 houses is taking RISK, and so is the person taking 
> the loan.  The risks weren't allowed to play out.  (And sadly, I agree 
> with that move right now, although I think it was botched in the 
> execution phase and worse, done far too late... but we were all going 
> down with those bad debts and the bailout was necessary, sadly.  I 
> take it as a personal failure not to have paid enough attention to 
> what my Congresscritters were allowing in 2005 when they stopped the 
> vote to put higher regulation on the banks.)

I understand, but I don't think it's realistic to say that risk is 
isolated.  His risk ends up being my risk if there are enough of him 
running around.  And I meant to imply also that a lot of this risk 
taking isn't often well calculated.  Stronger capitalist philosophies 
work better in ideal situations where people have access the the 
appropriate information and have good critical thinking skills, and 
probably even know a little bit of math.  I guess in theory, it all 
works out, but in reality between the fact that we're all too 
intertwined, and that there are a lot of people not doing their homework 
it just doesn't work.

For example, I went to look for houses at the beginning of the year.  Of 
course the real estate agent was telling me, "now is the best time to 
buy a house."  They got me in contact with a loan officer for Bank of 
America.  Most people would have just sort of bumbled along and taken 
their advice.  After all I do have enough money to make the mortgage 
payments.  But I ran the numbers and determined that it was better for 
me in the long run to save first, and take a look at this again later.  
One thing that I did notice is that despite what they may tell you, 
there isn't really anyone on your side.  The real estate agent will get 
more money based on the price of the house, for example.  Where is the 
guy who has the incentive to help me save money?  Like if you help me 
find a house 50k cheaper, you get a cut?  I guess that's totally on me.  
In that case, what do I need an agent for?

But most people just buy into it.  And even though it's attractive to be 
able to say, "well that's their problem, in reality it becomes my 
problem too.

Nate Duehr wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2008, at 10:01 PM, Angelo Bertolli wrote:
>> GDP per capita is a statistic doesn't mean anything if one person has 
>> all the money:  you're still a poor country.
>
> Like Cuba, the darling of the Socialists?  :-) 

Yes, exactly.  To put it in perspective, Cuba and Venezuela scare me 
much more than the Republicans ever could ;)

Nate Duehr wrote:
>
> On Oct 31, 2008, at 10:12 PM, Jed S. Baer wrote:
>
>>> The United States and Sweden are two examples of countries that have
>>> both created strong basis for economy (according to McCain) through
>>> socialist ideas.  Are you really going to deny that it is the socialist
>>> side of our capitalistic democracies that creates a strong middle 
>>> class?
>>
>> Please point to the "strong middle class" in the Soviet Union.
>>
>> The United States thrived because of capitalism. Yes, I absolutely deny
>> that socialism is responsible for the incredible economic growth of the
>> U.S.
>
> Me too, but I won't even couch it by saying "the U.S." -- *I* 
> personally am economically stronger because of Capitalism.  And I 
> won't become an apologist for that any time soon.
>
> Spend less than you make, and invest in other's business when you 
> agree with what they're doing.  Go figure.  It works.
I totally agree with you:  I'm personally not in debt, I save money 
before I buy things, I look at the long run instead of if I can make the 
monthly payment, etc.  And that's one of the things that I've decided I 
want from government.  I want them to be responsible with their 
pocketbook when the money they get is really coming from me.  I care 
about how efficiently taxes are being spent (what we're getting out of 
it), and I care about how much of my taxes are going to interest.

It's very frustrating for people like us who have lived within our 
means.  If anything, this whole financial crisis has taught me that even 
if you're careful, the rest of society can bring you down with them.  
That is to say:  none of us is an island and our finances as individuals 
aren't in reality totally our own doing.  If you got rich in America, it 
was because at least in part America gave something very valuable to 
you,  and you should give something back.  But of course, I'll be the 
first to admit that if I accumulated even as little as 5 million 
dollars, I probably wouldn't be doing much real work.  Most of the 
things I would do would still contribute somewhat to society, but for me 
it would all be categorized as "play."

On the other hand, if I think about the families who have both working 
parents so that they can pull in a combined 40-60k a year just to make 
ends meet, I  don't think "oh they're getting what they deserve."  
They're getting what they deserve in market terms, but that's a 
definition.  On the social level, I money has been accumulating toward 
the top.  And when Walmart says 'take it or leave it' you take it, 
because you have no choice.  Now you're a serf, despite the fact that 
"all men are created equal."

But I'm not saying we cap profits, so to speak.  We need to 
institutionalize a way that makes the flow of money, social values, and 
labor balance out within a capitalistic framework.  In my opinion, 
forcing Walmart to pay a higher minimum wage seems like a better choice 
than capping their profits (after all, we still want Walmart to try to 
make more money).  But if that drives Walmart to another country, maybe 
there's a third, even better solution.

Nate Duehr wrote:
>
> On Oct 31, 2008, at 10:41 PM, Angelo Bertolli wrote:
>
>> And one point I'd like to make is that even though the measurement of 
>> GDP for a country is important it's not the only thing that's 
>> important.  To bring it to a personal level, I'd rather make less 
>> money and have an enjoyable life than have tons of money and be 
>> miserable.
>
> Two thoughts on this one:
>
> 1. That's possible at any income level above subsistence.  Lowering 
> one's personal expectations of how much money one feels they're 
> "entitled" to, and not "competing with the Joneses" is often the best 
> way to live a very happy, fulfilled life.  To put it in personal, 
> right-now, terms... could you sock away 40% of your income and still 
> enjoy your life?  If you can, you will never rely on the government or 
> anyone else for "assistance", ever.  But if you need $100 tennis shoes 
> while you live in the Projects... well... you're life's going to suck 
> forever and you'll always vote for the guy who says he'll fix it by 
> making life "fairer" for you.
The fiscally responsible road is the one I am in fact taking.  Actually 
I really have no personal direct interest in social programs.  I have an 
indirect interest, because like the financial crisis, what society 
suffers affects me too.  I'm not really being altruistic, I'm being 
selfish.  I want a minimum standard of living that keeps other people 
from making my life worse because I have to live with them.  (I'm not 
anticipating being so filthy rich that I can buy myself away from 
them.)  But I don't think everyone is in my position and can save as 
much as I can.  Yeah, a ton of people could do better at this (which 
ironically is why I think a little recession is good to make people reel 
things in).  And yes, it's their fault they had kids before they were 
able to, but what do we do about it now?  (I love how we can tell people 
what they're allowed to do with their houses and building codes, but we 
can't tell them they can't have any [more] kids.)  And how much should 
the kids suffer for it?

I'm sure we can at least both agree there are better solutions than 
plain hand-outs.  But any solution would require redistributing wealth, 
just like building roads is redistributing wealth by giving everyone the 
same thing regardless of how much tax they pay.

> 2. There are always going to be people who don't think like this, for 
> whatever reasons, and they'll always want more.  Be it from peer 
> competition -- CEO's salaries went UP after the government made them 
> publish what they make, because they could now see that "Bob makes 
> more than I do" and compete with each other -- or whatever messed up 
> reasons from their upbringing and childhood... people with an 
> entitlement bent will always have it.  "I'm supposed to be rich, 
> because my family is."
>
> So... #2 goes back to the "limit their profits" debate.  How much for 
> them is "too much" money, versus how much for you and me is "too much" 
> money?   You want to keep them in check, I tend to think they drive 
> themselves so hard that their companies dole out a LOT of money to the 
> employees and everything around the company, and that money can be 
> used by an intelligent person to make their own personal station in 
> life, pretty decent.  I say the people they have to answer to, their 
> Board of Directors, needs to be wiser and smarter than the CEO.  
> That's so often not the case, it's a huge problem right now.  I've 
> said it before, "Any idiot from Harvard Business School can run a 
> company into the ground by listening to their peers."

I don't think there's any specific number we could come up with for what 
is "too much" but we can look at what is going on and say, "this doesn't 
seem right."  I like self-regulating systems, I just don't think that 
capitalism is the only one you need.  In other words, I support 
solutions that enforce things like transparency, reporting, and 
regulation ... maybe something that says if you're a publicly traded 
company, you are required to issue a vote on the CEO's salary every 
year, or something like that.  I don't know how far I'd go, or what the 
solution would be, but that's not my field of expertise.

I tend to like the ideas along the lines of companies paying CEO's in 
shares that they can't realize until 5 - 10 years after they have left 
the company.

Nate Duehr wrote:
>
> On Oct 31, 2008, at 11:34 PM, Angelo Bertolli wrote:
>
>> Well Social Security is one that (although needs to be managed 
>> better) I'm on board with.  I'm sure I'll never need it, but I'm glad 
>> we have it.  When I said that the US created social programs that 
>> helped to build the middle class, I was referring mostly to the New 
>> Deal.
>
> My grandfather, who lived on a farm in South Dakota during that time, 
> remembers VERY clearly what made the New Deal work... the government 
> set up WORK programs that anyone willing to uproot and go work their 
> asses off, could participate in.  The Interstate system being built 
> through South Dakota kept my great-grandfather, my grandfather, and 
> most of their friends and family in paid jobs during very bad times 
> later on.
>
> I have NO PROBLEM with government projects that garner RECIPROCATION.  
> You want me to hand a poor person a paycheck from my taxes, they can 
> move to where they can WORK daily on infrastructure projects.  That'd 
> be fine.  We have a lot of bridges here in Colorado that need rebuilding.
>
> (And I'm not being an ogre.  People with real disabilities and medical 
> conditions are of course, covered by our existing socialist-style 
> government entitlement systems.  I'm saying for the able-bodied stuck 
> in gangs and SHIT in the inner cities, give 'em a barracks, a job, and 
> put 'em to work... if they will CHOOSE to willingly go.  I'll gladly 
> pay for that out of my taxes.)

I'm in agreement with you on this one.  I'm not convinced that in the 
absence of such programs, a total vacuum in welfare is a good thing 
though.  I think it could have some pretty bad consequences.

>> Ok, ok, I'm sure there are some people who are serious 
>> socialists/communists.  But the Republicans like to equate that with 
>> the Democrats when the type of "socialism" the Democrats want isn't 
>> even considered socialism by the standard of some European 
>> countries.  (This goes back to my "colloquial socialism" comment:)  
>> It's not like when people use the word "socialism" in this country 
>> they're really talking about us becoming a completely socialist 
>> state, or that we will even come close to removing capitalism as our 
>> base system.  It's clear (at least to me) that calling someone a 
>> "socialist" has come to mean that the person thinks we should have 
>> certain social programs.  (And this goes back to my demonizing of the 
>> term:)  In that case,  it's either unfair to really call those people 
>> socialists, or it's unfair to demonize the term and use it only to 
>> mean pure marxism and anti-capitalism.  In short:  99% of the people 
>> who get called "socialists" here aren't anti-capitalists.
>
> Let's just call Democrats "too socialist" then.  Would that work?  For 
> example, the discussions ALREADY UNDERWAY to forcibly remove money 
> from 401k plans and place it in a government trust that buys 
> Treasuries (T-Bills) at 3% (lower if you dump a bunch of money into 
> them) to "save us from ourselves".  That's just insanity.

Yeah that's fine.  The Democrats are a little too socialist for me too.  
I just think that the Republicans aren't fiscally conservative enough 
with our nation's budget which concerns me more (with exception to the 
House Republicans, that seem to be a bit better).  I feel like we're 
running this country just like most people run their lives:  from 
paycheck-to-paycheck and with a forever-increasing credit card limit 
that we need to buy those new pair of shoes we don't need.  We don't 
want to look out of fashion, right?

But you're right, it goes both ways.  I just prefer tax  & spend, to the 
current level of borrow & spend.  But I'll agree with people on the 
right, reducing the spend part is important.

>> What roles do you think government should take in society, and how 
>> can it enforce them?  I mean after all, isn't it just a way that we 
>> all agree to live together?  I don't see the inherent flaw in giving 
>> money to something that we think benefits us as a society.  And 
>> you'll never ever get 100% of the people to agree on everything, so 
>> we should just have nothing?
>
> I don't think ANY of us mind giving money to something we all agree 
> benefits us as a society.  We just all disagree on what benefits us 
> ALL.  :-)  (The hard-core Libertarians on the list with a capital-L 
> might not like that sentiment, but most Republicans aren't crazy 
> enough to think we all need toll-roads and no government-sponsored 
> infrastructure at all.) 

Yeah, both parties are fairly centrist, but contain groups that stretch 
further left and further right.  Most Republicans (population-wise) I 
suspect and hope are still traditional Republicans.  And if they split 
off from the neo-cons, or neo-neo-cons, or whatever they're called 
(wait, that's Christopher Hitchens), they'd present a very attractive 
party to me.

Angelo